About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)
forces we have on the ground. could they have done more to protect u.s. forces to the u.s. personnel and prevented the last two -- >> the answer is we didn't have resources in range. secretary petraeus and dempsey acted quickly but they had to get somebody from spain and croatia. group of special operating forces to the u.s. arrive much too late. if we had, they sent a drone but unarmed drone. if we had an armed drone, in that dangerous part of the world, it probably could have knocked out people firing the mortars that killed the two seals. >> chris: given what we had there, you are saying -- >> there was no capacity to defen our personnel. in a timely way once the attack occurred. we can't let that happen again. part of what we have to do to make sure it doesn't happen again is we adequately support our defense budget. >> one question there, too, the d.o.d. or the state's fault? we don't know the answer. >> chris: finally, we got a minute left. senator mccain a graham called for a special congressional committee to investigate benghazi. take a look at what graham had to say. >> wat
of the iranian experience in the 1970s, and -- but, what should the u.s. be doing, saying, this is unacceptable and thank mr. morsi for his efforts in brokering a cease-fire, which is, by the way, incredibly fragile but is not what is acceptable, what the american taxpayers expect and our dollars will be directly related to the progress towards democracy, which you promised the people of egypt, when your party and you were elected president. >> chris: let's talk about that. because, morsi took his step hours after secretary of state clinton praised him for helping broker the deal between hamas and israel and so far, at least the administration issued, the state department, a tepid criticism. how tough should they get with them? directly say pull back, what should our demands an leverage be? >> our leverage is obviously, not only the substantial billions in aid we provide, plus, debt forgiveness and an i. -- an imf deal, but the marshalling world publish opinion is against this kind of move by mr. morsi. we appreciate president morsi's action but it always in the past the united states that brok
today. question one: the u.s. consulate in benghazi was attacked twice, before the 9/11 fatal assault. in fact, in august, and repeatedly, security officials there asked for more security, said they felt they were vulnerable. and, the situation was so dangerous, that the british diplomats and the red cross pulled out of benghazi. question: did the president know about that? >> chris, all i can tell you is, the president is fully committed to the safety of his diplomats and knew the ambassador and was deeply invested in his work there and, obviously, any steps that we needed to take, we would have wanted to take. so, you know, i mean, i'm not in the white house, i'm not privy to all of the discussions but i can tell you this: this president is 100% committed to the people of -- he sends overseas personally to represent the country and is the one who met the coffins when they came home, any suggestion that he would not take the necessary steps, to protect them, make some decision not to take the steps to protect them is nonsense. >> chris: david, i understand you are not in the white ho
, excuse me. direct: do you think that u.s. officials in washington had enough information beforehand, enough of these warnings, to beef up security before the attack ever happened? >> well, that is the purpose of our inquiry. and, that decision will be made by the committee. i have not had an opportunity get to go through what are thousands of pages. and, i -- you know, i want to do that. i want other members to do it. i don't want to jump to any conclusion. but, it would appear to me -- and this is just me -- that the five prior incidents in the year, which aren't intelligence, they are not threats. they are actual attacks on the british ambassador, on our consulate once before, on a number of other things, on the united states missions. now, that, to me, is sufficient intelligence to make a decision. now -- we want to see what the extent -- extenuating circumstances are, that it wasn't beefed by us, if it couldn't be beachefed up by the libyans or we didn't close done the consulate. >> chris: second question, was there enough time between the first attack and the second attack the
, given the forces we had on the ground, could u.s. forces have done more realistically to protect the u.s. forces and protect -- to u.s. personnel, and, prevented the last two -- >> that is key and goes to preventing the last two, the former seals from being killed and the answer is we didn't have resource in range and they acted quickly but had to get somebody from spain and croatia and forces who arrived much too late. they sent a drone and it was an unarmed dronend if we had an armed drone it could have probably knocked out the people firing the mortars that killed the two seals. >> chris: given what we had there, you are saying -- >> there was no capacity to defend our personnel, in a timely way. once the attacks occurred and we can't let that happen again, and, part of what we have to do to make sure it doesn't happen again is we adequately support oush defen our defense -- >> and the other question, was it dod are state's fault. and we don't know the answer. >> chris: finally, a minute left, senators john mccain and graham called for a special congressional committee to investigate
and the second attack on the an numbers, given the force wes had on the ground, could u.s. forces have done more to realistically to protect the u.s. forces and -- the u.s. personnel and have prevented the last two? >> it goes to preventing the last two former seals from being killed. the answer is we didn't have resource necessary range. they acted quickly, but they had to get somebody from spain, somebody from key asia -- from croatia. they arrived much too late. they sent a drone but it was an unarmed drone. if we had an armed drone in that dangerous part of the world it probably could have knocked out the people firing the mortors that killed the two seals. >> but given what we had there. >> there was though capacity to defend our personnel in a timely way once the attack occurred. we can't let that happen again. and part of what we have to do to make sure it doesn't happen again is we adequately support our defense budget. >> one question there, too, was that dod's fault or the state's fault? >> we don't know the answer. >> and finally, and we have about a minute left, senators mccain and g
and counsel l consulates over the world. threats pour in what do we do? >> do you think u.s. officials in washington had enough information before hand, enough of these warnings to beef up security before the attack ever happened? >> well, that's the purpose of our inquiry. the decision will be made by the dmiet. i have not had an opportunity yet to go through what are thousands of pages, and i want to do that, i want other members to do it. we don't want to jump to any conclusions. tfld appear to me, and it was just me, that the five prior incidents in the year which aren't intelligence they aren't threats they are actual attacks on the british ambassador on our consulate once before on a number of other things in the united states mission. now, that to me is sufficient intelligence to make a decision. so we want to make what the ex ten rating circumstances are that security wasn't beefed up like us if it wasn't beefed up by the libyans or if we closed down the consulate. >> do you think there was enough time between the 7 hours of the first attack on the cons laulat and the second at
asked about u.s. pressure but also the u.s. playing a greater role. if the obama administration says let's let them settle it themself but they said we'll play a more aggressive role. that's the challenge for the obama administration in the second term where as in the first term they wanted a light footprint. >> there's benghazi. the president, one aspect -- we talked about the investigation. the president is expected to announce a number of top appointments, including cabinet positions in the coming days, conceivably some as soon as this week and one of the questions is, and you see the two of them there, do you think he will take on this fight and name susan rice to be -- secretary of state and do you think the senate will confirm him. >> president obama has confided in me on his secretary of state. i rather think he'll appoint susan rice. i'm not a fab of -- fan of hers but i think she'll be confirmed. john kerry might be a worse secretary of state so maybe one goes ahead and lets him have the secretary of state of wants. other maybe one votes against it as senators say she wasn't for
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)